"Simon Marlow" <simonmar at microsoft.com> wrote:
> (a) we're going to standardise concurrency anyway
Well, but that only begs the question, what *kind* of concurrency are we
going to standardise on? e.g. Will we admit all variations of scheduling
(co-operative, time-slice, and pre-emptive)?
> (b) it is unlikely that Hugs or JHC will implement concurrency
> even if it goes into the standard
Now this is something that puzzles me. I was under the impression that
Hugs already implements concurrency, using pretty much the same APIs as
ghc.
I'd also like to know a bit more about jhc's position here. Is it just
that JohnM wants to keep his compiler "pure" and free from having a
runtime-system? Or are there other issues?
> Yes there are several ramifications of this decision, but none of them
> are technical. As I see it, we either specify Concurrency as an
> addendum, or NoConcurrency as an addendum, and both options are about
> the same amount of work.
There are certainly technical questions. If Hugs's implementation of
concurrency is not concurrency after all, on what basis do we make that
determination? Why is a definition of concurrency that encompasses both
ghc and Hugs models unacceptable?
Regards,
Malcolm